User reviews

Set in 1980s Belfast, when the Troubles were devastating Northern Ireland; this is the story of 22 year-old Martin McGartland (Sturgess) who, in real life, became involved implicitly with both sides of the conflict. The film details how he worked firstly for the IRA and was subsequently sought after and enlisted by the British police as a spy; leading him to live a perilous double-life. The title (taken from McGartland's book) refers to the number of people he believes he saved whilst working undercover.

The film begins by establishing him as an ordinary young man growing up within the bleak setting of West Belfast during that time, making very little money by selling knock-off goods door-to-door. He is mostly concerned with making enough money to impress his love-interest, Lara (Press); but he is also an Irish Catholic, who vehemently opposes the British occupation of the country and believes in the cause of a united Ireland. However, when he begins to work for the IRA, he becomes a first-hand witness to some of the atrocities committed by them and begins to have doubts about his political standpoint. Meanwhile, a member of Special Branch, Fergus (Kingsley), wants him to become an informant on IRA activities. Initial attempts to recruit him are useless, but McGartland eventually accepts the proposition; the violence he had witnessed still being fresh in his mind, along with the offer of a substantial sum of money in return for his work. The remainder of the film is a tense and gripping set of events, all the while focusing on McGartland's inner conflict. He is portrayed as a confused young man, exploited by both sides and absorbed completely by the two equally tormenting responsibilities which he cannot escape: on one hand, he is betraying the cause which his ancestors had given their lives to for centuries – his long-standing belief of freedom for his country; but on the other hand he is stopping the all-too-real violence he encounters on a day-to-day basis which, no matter what history has taught him, he cannot find justification for.

Although there are films which handle this subject matter far better, I feel that Fifty Dead Men Walking must be praised for the social realism and consistently gripping drama that is conveyed from the outset through the locations used, the cinematography and the outstanding performances given by the main cast. Sturgess captures the complexity of McGartland's character and, considering how difficult it must be to imitate a West Belfast accent, he and Press do a convincing job. I was compelled to watch the film from start to finish and credit is duly given for this being a fantastic piece of British cinema.

There are also, of course, the (dubious) factual elements associated with the film. It was filmed at the very location where these events were taking place little more than twenty years ago, which adds to the sheer tension felt throughout. The film is highly emotive and deals with controversial issues that have been highlighted again recently, where a dissident group, the "Continuity IRA", has claimed responsibility for the murder of a policeman. The film will resonate with people on many levels. It is true that there are overwhelming accounts of horrific violence from the Irish Republican Army (a small part of which are shown graphically in the film), yet there are many discrepancies in the film and viewers may not know the vast complicated past associated with the Troubles and so, we are presented with yet another media representation of one side of the fierce conflict in which, truthfully, equal acts of brutality have been committed on both sides throughout history. Ultimately, I would urge people to watch the film for its brilliant script, performances and drama; but not to take it as a lesson in Irish history by any means. If anything, whilst much hostility still exists today between some Nationalists and Unionists, the film succeeds in demonstrating the futility of such violence after hundreds of years of warfare and above all else, the overriding desire for peace from those people who have had to live amongst the fighting and still live with the concern that it may one day return.

The main attraction of this story is not of the violent politicking between the British and the IRA, where you see how either side become both the oppressed and the oppressor with their imposition of rules and regulations executed sometimes on a whim. This film doesn't seek out to preach the truth and has from the start stated that it had taken plenty of liberties with the story, inspired by the true story of an undercover agent's role in the IRA, being a trusted source and informant to the British, until he was played out as a political pawn and had to forever be on the run. Welcome to the world of clandestine operations, where the only rule of the game is to survive.

It takes a lot to go undercover and work as a mole. This duality is already very keenly spelled out in films such as Infernal Affairs (OK, so this is a very referenced film, but one to me that had raised the bar up so high), where one can be seduced by sheer power, or corruption of morality that one's supposed to be guarded against. It's no fun having to play act all the time, constantly looking over your shoulder at every turn, and practically living in fear that you'll be discovered due to carelessness, and be dished out punishment with unimaginable pain as just desserts.

Fifty Dead Men Walking refers to the number of persons that were saved from one man's diligent work as an undercover, without whom they would be sitting ducks to assassination attempts. In being timely to surface credible information to thwart would-be incidents, you're always be put in a position where your identity will be compromised, since the number of "moles"eliminated with each unsuccessful operation, will narrow the shortlist down to a few suspects. For Martin McGartland (Jim Sturgess), a wayward youth in Belfast who doesn't take sides, he becomes the perfect cover for British Intelligence officer Fergus (Ben Kingsley), who has to convince the former of his value to the cause, the British and not the Irish one that is.

So it's not just the usual Spy versus Spy where the source Martin becomes a hero overnight, but the film traces the long and arduous road of his rise into the inner echelons, while feeding off from the support of his handler Fergus to occasionally bail him out of tight situations. It's very much based on the themes of trust and betrayal. For Martin, with every step of trust that he gains from the IRA head honchos, it's also a proportional step of betrayal that's at his disposal, with each disclosure of operational plans and targets to Fergus. And trust is not easy between him and Fergus as well, and both of them knows it very clearly that either has the power within them, at any time, to call off this understanding of truce between both men, and betray the other.

It's a film that dwells on these themes successfully, and both Sturgess and Kingsley bring their characters quite alive by their electrifying portrayals of men trying to do the right thing, to make their worlds a better place to live in and save the lives of innocents on both sides. Besides being just plain handler and source, their professional relationship grows from the testing phase where negotiated chips sometimes don't get fulfilled, to a father-son one as they realize that they only have each other to depend on, as the big picture politics start to get in the way and threaten their solid partnership. Both actors feed off this great chemistry between them to bring out common elation with each successful stint, and fear when things start to go awry.

And with success breeds contempt, which puts the last 20 minutes of the film into a gripping but eventually emotional finale, that roads paved with good intentions more often than not, lead to Hell, or in McGartland's case, an everlasting personal torture. As with all clandestine operations, a pawn who grows too successful will garner unwanted attention from those who are morally corrupt, and basically there's no such thing as a thank you note of gratitude, only instances of how useful one can be constantly. When you outlive your usefulness, expect to be tossed out like the rest of the thrash.

What sagged the film was the attempt to provide more dimension to Martin McGartland through his romantic life, in the form of live-in girlfriend Lara (Natalie Press) and a Mata Hari-type temptress and boss Grace (Rose McGowan), both of which became somewhat of a distraction to the flow of the narrative, especially the needless un-seductive moves of the latter. Otherwise, Ben Kingsley and Jim Sturgess' performances should draw you into the film, as would the themes and premise of the film.

I read the book going by the same name many years ago when it first came out and it left quite an impression on me. I felt very sympathetic to Mr McGartland's predicament, so I for one am glad that his story can largely be told in this medium. Read the book to iron out the odd discrepancy and to get the time-line correct. The director of this film bravely attempted to show 'The Troubles' as viewed from both sides in the short time the film allows. Although not all of the events are true, the film does realistically portray the truly chilling times. It is violent, nasty and tense, and I congratulate the director on not pulling any punches and showing the sort of menace that haunted the streets in the province. The makers of the film did state: 'The screenplay to the film is INSPIRED by the book. Although many aspects and characters have been changed the screenplay was not written or approved by the writers of the book and is not a reproduction or adaptation of the book or any substantial part of it' at the end of the film. I would suggest that wording was inserted to cover themselves. Certainly, Mr McGartland was not happy with the film to begin with as it showed him to be present at deaths that took place, to which he claimed he was not. Obviously, there are faults with the film then. But the main thrust of the book/film for me was that Mr McGartland was young, naive but also courageous, he was used by both sides and yet eventually couldn't trust either side. Although the peace treaty has been signed and to 'all intents and purposes' the Troubles are over 'as we knew them', it is a well known fact that the IRA never forget those that cross them. So the film is a reminder to many that this man gave up his life as he knew it for very little in return and to be forever on the run. This is not your typical Hollywood fare and is all the better for it. A job well done!

Take one young naïve man and place him as an informer (a "Tout") on the IRA to Special Investigations/Police and you have the gist of this film. Set in Belfast, we follow the life of one guy who is in over his head (as they always are) and has to juggle both sides along with his burgeoning family commitments (girlfriend with kid etc).

A generally captivating storyline being based on a true story, and to my surprise didn't glorify any act of violence but rather shows life as a ground patrol man for the IRA in it's most gritty form. Tries to steer clear of cliché and does a fine job.

Acting is fair and most actors fill in their roles very comfortable. Ben Kingsley is wonderful as the Special Investigators sponsor, whilst Jim Sturgess as the informer keeps you on side throughout the film. Rose McGowan as an IRA intelligence officer is the only person who seems out of place but likely was there to add a bit more colour to the surroundings but doesn't take away from the film too much.

Overall, an enjoyable analysis of life in the IRA. Add in a good soundtrack and some able camera work and you have in total a very good film. Good viewing.

I had no idea who martin McGartland was until I watched this movie, unlike the main character in HUNGER and ironically I watched this directly after watching matt Damon in The Informant. If that title was misleading, this one certainly was not, though working out why they called it 50 dead Men walking takes some thinking about in the context of the movie. It refers of course to the 50 men who would have died if Mr McGartland didn't save them from assassination.

This is a very powerful piece of British drama set in the 1980s. it is a very intense film but the story is easy to follow and the film overall is enjoyable without ever being full of violence or bad language. I still have images in my mind from HUNGER and FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN, not top mention the 'Barley' movie and of course Michael Collins.

I do agree that too much attention as a distraction in the movie to the two young women who feature in Mr McGarlands life and there should have been greater emphasis on the actual political role he had to play for the IRA and for the British Police.

Harrys Game was indeed a top production but should not be compared to this new movie. Ben Kingsley was 'spot on' as Fergus and added the quality to the film it might otherwise have lacked.

another well made British film, keep it up!

"Fifty Dead Men Walking" is a true story movie which has to do with Martin McGartland's life story. This story shows us Martin McGartland who is recruited by the British Police to spy on the IRA.

I liked this movie because it's a movie that is based on a true story and because of its plot. I also liked it because of the cast and the interpretations of it. Ben Kingsley who plays as Fergus made a great interpretation and Jim Sturgess who played as Martin McGartland made an also great interpretation for one more time. I also believe that Kari Skogland did a nice job in the direction of this movie.

Finally I have to tell you that I really recommend this movie because it shows us a different way of things and how these things happened.

I've never written a review before and don't really feel very qualified to do so, but I felt so strongly about this film that I wanted to do more to recommend it than giving the star rating.

Jim Sturgess turns in an incredibly moving and amazing performance as Martin, the young man who gets caught up with the IRA via his friends, only to be turned by "Fergus," played by Kingsley in a very different and understated role than we're used to seeing him.

Martin is torn between the cause and his friends vs. the ever-growing violence against innocents. He becomes a father and ultimately decides to be a source for Fergus, infiltrating deep and high into the organization. We live through his angst, fright, joy, sorrow, regret, rage and pride as he evolves.

Kingsley's portrayal of Fergus -- a hard and closed-off guy who comes to uncharacteristically care deeply about Martin -- is played brilliantly, with just the right low-key nuance in manner of speaking and facial expression that allow you to see his emotional wall crumbling a bit for Martin.

But there are costs for Martin regardless which path he takes, just a grim and sad result of the fractious climate between the IRA and British soldiers/police.

The storyline, the style of filming (sorry, I'm not adept with technical terms), the wonderful development of the Martin character (and to a lesser extent, Fergus), along with the incredible performance by Sturgess (I would go so far as to say even Oscar-worthy) really make this film memorable and worth your time.

As with any film on Northern Ireland it is good to see the message board full of debate about who the "good guys" were in Northern Ireland, who was in the right, who was in the wrong etc etc with occasionally someone talking about the film. I'll leave all of that to those guys but, as one has to do with these films for some reason, I will lay out my colours for all to see. Although I moved away around age 20, I was born in Belfast and grew up as a Protestant in North Antrim. I don't think I brought any of that to this film but for some that will be enough to explain why I didn't like this film.

Actually, it will probably be enough for viewers from both side of that political spectrum because the film manages to be such a thing that it is possible to side with both the IRA and the police/army. To a certain point this is a good thing because it asks you to sympathise/dislike both groups, which is true I guess because in the conflict nobody is 100% right or wrong – both sides have fundamental points but yet have done so much wrong as to make them a distant memory. However, this is only "to a point" because it doesn't strike me as a deliberate thing so much as it is a side-effect of the film not really getting to the heart of the matter or the characters. The Northern Ireland of the film is secondary to the central "Donnie Brasco-esquire" story, which again is not a problem in and of itself, just that you're not used to that with Northern Irish films, but it does cause a problem because by not doing a good job of laying out a convincing base, the film does feel a little superficial.

This is made more evident by the way it is directed but also the way that accuracy is often set aside in favour of having set pieces and action. Such sequences don't really work and stand out awkwardly as being out of place and not belonging in a film set in this time and place – it is not as bad as The Devil's Own in this regard but you get my point. All this aside though, the film should work in the same way Donnie Brasco did because I didn't come to that film moaning about the lack of convincing mob detail etc etc but rather really enjoyed it as a film. Sadly the things that this film should be taking from Donnie Brasco and repeating are lacking. This problem comes from the material because it doesn't engage as it should and the characters, beyond Lara, don't do that much. To be precise what I felt was missing was key relationships for Martin. His relationship with his handler isn't that good in their shared scenes, while he lacks a "Lefty" in the IRA. This takes away the majority of the opportunities for scenes in which the strain comes through and we get to see conflicting sides of Martin, like we did in Donnie Brasco, and this is a shame because it does mean the film loses a lot.

It is still a solid watch though, so don't take my negativity as a sign that it was awful – just that it seemed to miss a lot of what it could and should have been doing. It is all helped a lot though by Sturgess in the lead. Now part of me wonders why more actual Northern Irish actors couldn't have been used at that level but Sturgess does do a good job and clearly could have done more with better and more complex material. Funnily enough Kingsley is part of the problem. He is far too stiff and too clearly "acting" – he prevents much in the way of chemistry and does nothing to tell us how he was able to reach Martin. The supporting cast do their turns reasonably well but only Press really stands out as she brings a bit of emotion and discussion to the film.

Overall Fifty Dead Men Walking is more about what it is not rather than what it is. As a film set in the troubles, it doesn't do a particularly good job depicting them. As a thriller it doesn't manage to be engaging enough to thrill. As a Donnie Brasco type story set in Northern Ireland (which is what it is) it doesn't do the things that made that film successful. It is still OK in most regards but it never really becomes the film it should have been.

Based on the life of Martin McGartland, who was recruited by the British Police to spy from within the Irish Republican Army, Fifty Dead Men Walking is the latest cinematic attempt to bring awareness to the horrors of the British/Irish troubles. At the end of the film there is a disclaimer about the accuracy of the film in relation to McGartland's actual book of the same name. While it should be noted that McGartland himself has renounced the film in British film magazines as not being his story. What we do know is that Martin McGartland is a real person who really did spy for the British Police inside the IRA. It's also fact that he saved close to 50 men from being killed as part of the long running conflict, and he is in fact still in hiding to this very day.

So with that in mind it's a film to be viewed both with suspicion and intrigue. There is no denying that the harshness of the plot and some of its scenes {ouch, torture} impacts like a sledgehammer, but crucially it's hard to get on side with the unlikable McGartland {brilliantly played by rising Brit star Jim Sturgess}. In spite of his achievements in thankfully stopping many murders down the line, his motives are mixed and not necessarily prioritised. Having not read the book myself I have no idea if the portrayal of himself is what McGartland objects too? Or it may well be that he is shown as being in places he clearly wasn't? Still, character affinity is probably not what the makers were after anyway, they view the conflict from primarily one side, and in the main they achieve that without looking biased or guilty of sensationalism. Certainly the play off between Martin, his best mate and IRA baddie, Sean, is very engrossing as things start to get hairy. While the relationship between Martin and Ben Kingsley's copper, Fergus, is one of the film's strengths.

Not so good is the shoe-horned in part of Grace {a miscast Rose McGowan} and the ending feels rushed in relation to the pace that preceded it. A potent soundtrack featuring the likes of The Ruts and Stiff Little Fingers mingles perfectly with the grainy portrait of Northern Ireland that director Kari Skogland has opted for. Whilst the script is sharp and never drifts off to filler speak and pointless musings on the moral quandaries that are thrown up. As a history lesson on the Irish troubles it's barely worth any interest, as a character study about people within the troubles? Well it's definitely of interest there. 6.5/10

I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival and liked it a great deal. The film is violent in parts, but this violence is necessary to truly show the times and the conflict that was going on between Ireland and England. I felt that both sides were presented in the movie, never showing too much favor to one or the other. It was a terrible and long period in UK history with far too much death and hate and this movie makes it clear for those of us that have little knowledge of it. I had no idea that this conflict went on for the length of time that it did or how the IRA operated before viewing the film, nor did I know that the IRA was as operational today as it is, they found Martin in hiding and tried to kill him again in Canada years later.

Jim's performance as Martin was excellent and believable as was Ben's. I recommend spending the time to see the movie when it is released.

Sometimes life gives us (or any director/screenwriter/producer etc.) stories, that are so amazing and touching, that a movie is inevitable. And although the "based on true ..." tag, might be like a cross/garlic to a vampire for some, I think it works here. The movie stays in a very raw and real environment.

Jim Sturgess is the Center piece of course and you might have seen him in a couple of other movies. He is really great and he plays his characters (real people or fictional) with such an ease, that you can't distinguish, if he's actually acting or if that's just him on the screen. Which is a very good thing indeed. Based around his performance the movie seems to have some pacing problems, but then again since this is based on real events, that could be something we should expect. A good movie, with a great actor in it then.

I will not summarise the film as many people have already done that here. What want to do is comment on some of the inaccuracies and bias in the film.

1 Firstly as someone else pointed out Martin was never shot in Canada

2 In one part of the film KIngsely says that the IRA are terrorists and Martin replies that he is discriminated against by the British who act like terrorists. This is never challenged and its never mentioned that the security forces contain Northern Irish people too. The film acts almost as if protestants are not legitimate citizens on Northern Ireland. It seems to want to reduce the conflict to the facile level of a British army occupying Ireland which is what ignorant Americans always claimed. So in this way it panders to ignorance.

3 For the information of the film makers people in 1980's Northern Ireland referred to parking lots as car parks, called hoods, yobs or hoodlums, and did not used the sentence construction 'get to' as in 'I get to have a new car...'. The attempt to Americanise the English language (presumably so that ignorant people can understand it better) detracts from its realism.

4 At the beginning of the film Martin runs from a police/ Army checkpoint and is chased until he is caught. I can assure the film makers that in Northern Ireland at that time anyone running from a checkpoint would have been shot. Ohh but then we would have had no film, so that can't be allowed to happen can it?

For those with a long memory or an interest in this area of history, there was a brilliant TV drama in the 80's in the UK called Harry's Game about an British soldier working undercover agent in the IRA. What that captured was the terror and constant threat of working day in day out with people who would kill you - slowly - if they ever found out. And whilst this film is a solid effort to portray a true story of a young catholic recruited by the Brits to inform on his friends and neighbours, you never really felt as if he was scared, ever. And he most definitely would have been. However, the film moves along well and keeps you entertained. It is just a shame that the characters feel a little 2 dimensional and stereotypical. I think that the film tried too hard to be impartial. There was no sides taken here, no rights or wrongs on the political front and that meant that it felt like no-one really cared and that everyone was equally good/bad. That may be the reality of a conflict like Northern Ireland, but as a dramatic event it made the film falter. However, for audiences not aware of the history of NI and with no axe to grind, then this is a nice thriller with enough to keep you awake

I don't care about the accuracy. It's closer than 90 percent of what we see out of Hollywood. Having said, kudos to Canadian director Kari Skogland on a terrifically entertaining film. Great performances by all actors. Ben Kingsley and Jim Sturgess were especially great. They obviously had good chemistry which played out on the screen. Jim Sturgess is a talented young actor. The soundtrack was exactly right, helping to create a sense that I had just had a glimpse into what their lives must've been like. I measure films based on how they made me feel. This one was a "Wow!"

Look forward to seeing more from all!

It's was SLRs in the early 80s not SA80s it would help as every thing else tries to fit into the era.

If you are from N.Ireland an grew up in the 1980's this movie paints a very close picture to the real thing, I was blown away by Jim Sturgess N. Irish accent, he had it down to a tee!!!

A must to understand what kids in N. Ireland used to and to some degree still go through.

Another movie if u like this one is Resurrection Man, this Film was based on the deeds of the Shankhill Butchers in 1970s

Another good one is Five Minutes Of Heaven, this is set In February, 1975, in Northern Ireland, seventeen year-old UVF member Alistair Little kills the catholic Jimmy Griffin in his house in Lurgan in front of his younger brother Joe Griffin. Alistair is arrested and imprisoned for twelve years while Joe is blamed by his mother for not saving his brother. Thirty-three years later, a TV promotes the meeting of Alistair and Joe in a house in River Finn, expecting the truth and the reconciliation of the murderer and the victim who actually seeks five minutes of heaven.

A good, gritty thriller about one mans struggles todo the right thing amongst the troubles of Northern Ireland in the late 80s. There have been a few good efforts to portray ordinary people caught in extraordinary situations but this must be one of the worst. Undercover in the IRA if you were a Brit would be scary, but as a young catholic native of Belfast the sense that you were betraying your own community must weigh heavy.good performances all round - never dipping into cliches - and a lovely ambiguity over who was good and who was bad. It reminded me of one of my favourite British TV dramas - Charlie's Game - dealing with a very similar subject and period. Watch this and then re watch the excellent '71 for a great double feature

This highly anticipated and very controversial film is based on the true story of IRA infiltrator Martin McGartland during "the Troubles" which plagued Northern Ireland in the 1980s.

Here is where I'd normally post a review. The fact is, I have difficulty doing so because there were major problems involving the sound.

First, the sound mix on the film left a lot to be desired. I love music and great soundtracks as much if not more than most people, but it was so loud at times that I couldn't hear much dialogue at all. I don't know if it was just because of the venue acoustics or the film's sound mix itself or both, but there were entire segments of the film where the dialogue was completely drowned out by the soundtrack.

When one could hear the dialogue, the accents were so thick and heavy that it was extremely difficult to understand. Between the sound mix, the dialects, and the slang I could barely make out about a third of the dialogue. For approximately the first hour I couldn't follow one complete conversation, combining the elements I just mentioned. Now, I attend many films and have seen plenty of movies with thick Irish accents but this one went far beyond any I've seen. Subtitles are definitely needed.

Certainly I'm not alone in my opinions. Other reviews do point that out. They also do acknowledge the language challenges and comment on the heavy use of music. Some audience members near me went through most of the film not knowing who was on which side, which was probably exacerbated by the lack of understanding of the dialogue.

I don't know how many people walked out but in my section there were dozens. I've also been told that some reviewers even left (for the reasons I mentioned). "Fifty Dead Men Walking Out" seems more appropriate. I've never walked out on a film, ever. I've seen over 500 films just since the start of 2006 at about 30 festivals, and have seen some pretty bad ones, but this was the first time I wanted to leave. I resisted the urge, though, and am glad I did because the exciting second hour of the film was definitely worth waiting for, and the action becomes more important than the dialogue at that point anyway.

I'm fairly certain "Fifty Dead Men Walking" will find a US distributor if it hasn't already. Sources close to the film told me that a deal may be announced soon. It definitely deserves a wide release but only if it's subtitled. Otherwise I cannot recommend seeing it except for die-hard fans of the cast members, those who know the story well, or those who have the ability to understand the thickest Irish accents.

I just wish I could have understood more of it. Between the the mix on the film itself and the dialect it was quite hard to understand most of the dialogue. Hopefully I'll be able to see it again and give it a positive review but, for now, I simply cannot write about this film properly because I just missed too much to judge it fairly. I might have if I could hear what they were saying.